A.l.a This submission to the Joint Committee
on Human Rights (JCHR) has been prepared by the leadership of
Britain's campaign for the social inclusion and non-discrimination
of transsexual people, Press for Change. It follows the publication
of the Government's draft Gender Recognition Bill on 11 July 2003
and the call for evidence issued by the JCHR by press notice on
17 July.

A.l.b Prior to assembling this response
the leadership of Press for Change undertook work to explain the
detailed provisions and practical implications of the draft Bill
to our membership[37]
who were then polled for feedback. This submission therefore represents
a distillation of the views from a significant and varied sample
of the community.

A.2 About Press for Change

A.2.a Press for Change (PFC) is the largest
representative organisation for transsexual people in the UK.
PFC was formed in 1992 to "achieve equal civil rights and
liberties for all transgender people in the United Kingdom, through
legislation and social change". Today it has a postal membership
of approximately 2,000 transsexual people and, through a web site
and bulk email distribution, is able to reach a subset of around
450 of that membership almost immediately. This provides especially
valuable feedback to the leadership when it is necessary to speak
with authority on behalf of a representative sample of transsexual
(or "trans") people[38]

A.2.b The campaign has always sought to
achieve its objectives through education and engagement rather
than confrontation or demand-making. Consequently, good relations
have been established with Ministers and officials over the last
few years, as Government has sought to address the problems faced
by trans people.

A.2.c In 1997-99 PFC took part in consultation
and negotiation with Margaret Hodge MP and her officials as the
DfEE set out to introduce the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment)
Regulations 1999 as a Statutory Instrument by negative resolution.
Subsequently, in 2000-01, the authors of this document made substantial
contributions to the work of the Interdepartmental Working Group
set up by Jack Straw and have gone on to provide further advice
and guidance to officials at the LCD/DCA following the 2002 "Goodwin
and I" judgments in the ECtHR.

A.2.d The authors of this report have all
therefore been close to the processes through which the key provisions
of the current draft Bill have evolved. We are particularly well-placed
to understand and comment on the provisions which we regard as
essential to the integrity of the Bill's objectives. ie Those
topics which, if not approached in a specific way, will fail to
provide meaningful protection for the privacy of trans people's
lives, the security of their families and the equalisation of
trans people's overall place in society. Equally, we are also
keenly aware of those provisions which we have lobbied-for and
which have not survived into the first draft of the Bill.

B.l.b Many of the provisions which we have
lobbied for and which, if not present, would compromise the legislation's
ability to provide real solutions to the serious problems encountered
by trans people in their everyday lives. It is essential that
the purpose of these key provisions should be properly understood
and that they should not be watered-down or replaced. Important
features of the Bill include the fact that it provides recognition
for all purposes (partial recognition would be meaningless), the
use of an administrative (rather than judicial) application process,
a realistic approach to evidence collection (recognising the practicality
of obtaining some information long after treatment), strong direction
concerning privacy protection / disclosure (the "need to
know"), recognition that not all trans people are able to
undertake surgical reassignment and provisions for those who live
abroad and the needs of those who have come to live and work in
Britain. These and other positive features are itemised in full
below

B.1.c Certain aspects which were not sought
by trans campaigners but which we nevertheless feel able to welcome.
We warmly endorse the "conscience" provision awarded
to Anglican ministers. To us this represents the achievement of
an equitable balance of interests between one minority group and
another, where these overlap. It would not be in the interests
of a couple to insist on being married by someone acting under
legal duress, who didn't approve of their union.

B.1.d A small number of features which concern
us and which will lead to hardship and distress not only for trans
people, but for their families too. Our principal concern relates
to the requirement for those in pre-existing long term stable
marriages to divorce as a prerequisite to legal recognition of
the trans partner. This provision affects a very small number
of couples but has potentially devastating consequences in those
cases. It requires an impossibly cruel decision to be made and
affects the emotional and financial interests of the non-trans
partner and children of the family as much as it affects the trans
partner. We believe that it represents a unique requirement in
legal historythere is no precedent for the state requiring
a couple to divorce in return for a right freely enjoyed by others.
In social terms it achieves nothing: such couples are already
perceived in their communities as a single-sex couple. In political
terms, the survival of these thirty or so marriages does not represent
a step towards single sex marriage if that is the Government's
concern: getting married and remaining married are different issues,
and there are simple means to prevent any growth in cases of this
type. This issue is discussed in further depth in section C.2
and the submissions of many of the families concerned have been
assembled in Appendix 3[39]

B.1.e Other aspects of the Bill which concern
us include the cost of application, the failure to address the
issue of discrimination in the supply of Goods and Services (other
than vocational training), the possible conflict of interest for
medical members of the Gender Recognition Panels, and the privacy
of the index to the Transsexual Persons Register. Again, these
issues are itemised in full below.

B.1.f Readers should note that a clause
by clause detailed analysis of the draft Bill has been published
prior to this submission by Press for Change at http://www.pfc.org.uk/gr-bill/.

B.2 Provisions Which Are Essential As They
Stand

B.2.a The following aspects of the draft
Bill are considered by Press for Change to be important or essential
in order to ensure that the Bill works effectively for all transsexual
people:

B.2.b Recognition for ALL purposes

B.2.b.1 The Interdepartmental Working Group
noted in its April 2000 report to Ministers[40]
that

". . . we have not been able to identify
any areas in which recognition could be given without leading
to confusion and uncertainty. We were very doubtful whether there
could be a half-way house between the present position and full
legal recognition for all purposes" (paragraph 3.8)

Press for Change therefore applauds the unequivocal
direction set by the Bill in this regard.

B.2.c Privacy Protection and the legitimate
"Need to Know"

B.2.c.1 Discrimination and even overt violence
towards transsexual people is an unfortunate and distressing fact
of life and cannot simply be legislated away. Next to employment
discrimination, any requirement to disclose this aspect of medical
history to others (and the consequent potential of casual or malicious
disclosure) stands as the most serious threat to the ability of
trans people to integrate and live full and settled lives.

B.2.c.2 Disclosure can come about in a variety
of ways. The European Court of Human Rights considered several
typical examples faced by all transsexual people conducting the
most basic of affairs in everyday life. Whether or not negative
consequences actually occur, the fear of the potential adds immense
stress to a trans person's life, rekindling the traumas of having
undergone a treatment to which so much unjustified stigma is attached.
Any disclosure of a trans person's status is therefore a serious
consideration and, whilst it is acknowledged that there are occasions
when matters of fact have to be disclosed with good reason, PFC
is pleased that the authors of the draft Bill have considered
the legitimate "need to know" with great sensitivity
and put provisions in place which, whilst not perfect, certainly
provide a form of redress against malicious behaviour and spell
out the seriousness with which any other form of abuse of this
nature should be viewed by courts. Our only concern in this respect
will be the degree to which possible attempts can be made to widen
the initial range of exempted organisations and circumstances
in the future.

B.2.d Non-surgical requirements

B.2.d.1 This aspect of the draft Bill is
discussed in detail in section C.l. Suffice to say in summary
that this aspect of the proposed legislation is of particular
importance in order to ensure that transsexual men (ie those who
have transitioned from female to male) have access to the protections
and rights envisaged, regardless of the status and affordability
of the medical techniques to create a male phallus for the individual
concerned.

B.2.e Flexibility and discretion in Recognition
Panels

B.2.e.1 PFC also welcomes the way in which
the draft Bill empowers the proposed Gender Recognition Panels
to take a responsible and realistic approach towards the question
of qualifying evidence. This is especially important for trans
people whose treatment took place many years ago or in another
country. The evolving and client-driven nature of treatment for
trans people over five decades means that many different but valid
trajectories exist. Surgeons/Counsellors may have retired or died,
or may practice in another country. GP records may be incomplete.
Trans people have needed to cover their tracks for their own protection.
Panel members therefore need some latitude for considering the
available evidence. This is largely provided as the Bill stands,
although the wording is not clear as to whether existing medical
reports are acceptable (an important cost consideration for applicants).
It will also be helpful to obtain agreement from the NHS to issue
guidelines to GPs which at least limit any fees charged for medical
reports, and preferably require that the report be produced without
charge to the patient.

B.2.e.2 Whilst welcoming flexibility we
are additionally concerned that the present wording of the Bill
potentially enables Panels to repeatedly ask for more evidence.
This could at a future time render successful applications by
some or all trans people simply unaffordable and such a policy
could be implemented without reference to Parliament. We would
therefore recommend that this potential loophole be removed.

B.2.f Administrative application process

B.2.f.1 Some other jurisdictions have used
recognition processes which were judicial rather than administrative
in nature. These are always subject to judgement, require special
forms of training, are difficult to conduct in a confidential
manner, and introduce uncertainty into what needs to be a straightforward
and consistent process. PFC therefore welcomes the kind of administrative
process proposed, subject to the concern (see below) that the
evidence gathering must not be too expensive for people on low
income to afford.

B.3 Provisions Which Are Welcomed

B.3.a Conscience Clause

B.3.a.1 As observed in B.1.c, PFC welcomes
this clause as a fair and equitable means of achieving balance
between the rights of people who wish to marry in their corrected
gender and those Anglican clergy who feel that this would be counter
to their personal beliefs and conscience.

B.3.b Fast-track provisions for those who
transitioned long ago

B.3.b.1 The early application period creates
a welcome fast-track procedure for those who have been waiting
the longest for legal recognition. However, the draft Bill does
not allow the procedure to be used after the six-month period.
PFC is concerned that this could create an unfair disadvantage
for people unable to apply in that time. This could happen for
many reasons, such as illness or because the person is living
or working overseas. Many trans people also lose contact with
others once their transition is completeespecially those
who are not online, and we do not think it likely that this provision
will receive widespread mainstream publicity.

B.3.b.2 Unless the fast track procedure
remains available after the initial six-month period, some people
could not merely be excluded from using it, but might also find
it difficult to meet the stricter evidential requirements which
apply after that period. Such evidence is likely to be far more
expensive to obtain than in the case of someone who has only just
completed their treatment. PFC therefore recommends that the draft
Bill should be amended to allow the fast-track process to remain
available after the initial six-month period, but only to those
who can demonstrate that they would have been eligible to apply
in that initial period.

B.3.c Recognition of AID trans fathers

B.3.c.l Couples in which the man is of transsexual
background are able to begin a family using the same techniques
available to any other couple where the man is infertile. Artificial
Insemination by Donor (AID) enables the woman to conceive and
carry the children to term and, at birth, the law normally allows
the male partner to be recorded as father on the children's birth
certificates (although there is no genetic relation). The draft
Bill's provision serves to protect the interests and rights of
the children (and mother) in families where the father is a trans
man and has only been previously prevented from registering himself
as such because of his unrecognised gender status. This is therefore
welcomed.

B.3.d Recognition of previous family responsibilities

B.3.d.1 PFC likewise applauds the explicit
guidance which the Bill provides in terms of responsibilities
and obligations acquired prior to legal recognition. Above all,
we view this as valuable reassurance to the children of parents
who have transitioned after their birth, eliminating any fears
about their own legal status as a child with legal parentage and
rights stemming from that.

B.3.e People living I born abroad and foreign
nationals

B.3.e.1 We welcome the fact that the draft
Bill contains protections for (a) those trans people who felt
forced to move and live abroad to marry and enjoy the peaceful
pursuit of a private life/ career, (b) those British Citizens
who, by virtue of having been born and registered abroad, may
otherwise become disadvantaged through the inability to correct
their birth registration in that country and (c) the citizens
of other countries who, having been legally recognised in their
own country, may need the reassurance that such legal status extends
to the UK (eg marrying a British national here).

B.4 Provisions or Omissions Which Concern
Us

B.4.a Pre-existing Marriages

B.4.a.1 This is the most significant failing
of the draft Bill. Whilst it affects (by common estimation) fewer
than two to three dozen families, the consequences are of enormous
importance to those couples and, in particular, the non-trans
partner and any children, who face the forced break-up of their
family and loss of their financial security in order to secure
the convention rights of the trans partner. The implications and
possible mitigating strategies are discussed in greater depth
in section C.2 and the personal perspectives of many such couples
are provided in Appendix 3.

B.4.b Cost of Application

B.4.b.1 As noted earlier, the cost of application
for trans people is a significant concern within a community that
has endured employment discrimination for many decades. Research
spanning the last ten years[41]
has demonstrated that, in spite of the inclusion of protection
within the Sex Discrimination Act[42]
trans people remain far more likely to lose employment as a result
of their treatment and, for those who retain jobs, the majority
are generally likely to be found in roles that are significantly
below their pre-transition employment. The draft Bill leaves the
setting of application fees to Ministerial discretion. Appendix
5 contains a comprehensive analysis of the potential overall costs
for applicantsespecially if a policy of "full cost
recovery" were to be pursued.

B.4.b.2 Notwithstanding the concern that
such fees may become an obstacle to those on benefits or minimum
wage levels, however, we are concerned (as noted above) that the
cost of obtaining medical evidence could also become prohibitive
if copies of existing medical reports are not explicitly allowed
as an alternative to a fresh medical report (which is likely to
incur private fees). If the reports already on file are not acceptable
to the panel, applicants will face a significant expense in consulting
specialists, and paying for new reports: the costs could routinely
amount to hundreds of pounds per applicant. There is also no guarantee
that NHS specialists would agree to compile such reports as part
of their NHS work, and specialists in the private sector often
have long waiting lists. In either case, there is a very real
risk that the limited pool of specialists would not have enough
time to handle the extra workload without neglecting their current
patients.

B.4.c Failure to prevent discrimination
in the supply of goods and services

B.4.c.1 Whilst the draft Bill contains welcome
amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act, removing Genuine Occupational
Qualifications (GOQ's) for employment and vocational training
which become inappropriate following legal recognition, the question
of protection regarding the provision of Goods and Services remains.
As in other areas of minority discrimination, this omission serves
to perpetuate discrimination in daily life, regardless of legal
status. In this respect the Bill therefore regrettably fails our
test that it "Provides recognition of a change of sex for
all legal purposes". A trans person, having been legally
recognised, remains in the position that the SDA will fail to
protect them against discrimination when shopping or socialising,
or when trying to access services available to others of their
sex. It will remain possible for a provider to offer the argument
in court that they have not discriminated against (say) a legally
recognised trans woman by excluding them from their premises,
because they would have discriminated equally against a trans
man on the basis of their transsexuality. This may result, of
course, from permitted categories of disclosure.

B.4.d Powers of the Gender Recognition Panel
to refuse a Gender Confirmation Certificate

B.4.d.1 Though the draft bill provides some
protection to those who believe their Gender Recognition Certificate
has been unfairly refused it is limited in that, combined with
the section which allows the Gender Recognition Panel to ask for
further information, it leaves the applicant with no protection
against excessive or unfair bureaucracy. PFC believes that where
an application has been made twice and rejected on each occasion
that the applicant should be able to appeal to the High Court
for the decision of the Gender Recognition Panel be overturned
on the basis of factual evidence presented to the court.

B.4.e Potential conflict of interest for
medical members of Gender Recognition Panels

B.4.e.1 The size of the medical community
having sufficient qualifications to sit on Gender Recognition
Panels is relatively small. Expertise is concentrated into a small
number of centres. Unfortunately some of those practitioners have
also acquired a strongly negative reputation among transsexual
people and have, in some cases, faced litigation on grounds of
abuse of their power over patients' lives. There is therefore
a significant possibility that panel members may find themselves
ruling on the applications of their own patients. We are concerned
at the conflict of interest which this introduces, especially
if panel members are not directly obliged to state such relationships
and stand down when they occur.

B.4.f Privacy of the Index to the Transsexual
Persons Register

B.4.f.1 Whilst the public does not normally
have direct access to the registers of Births, it is conventional
to grant access to the indexes. The index to the Transsexual Persons
register has considerable significance, and access would conflict
with the Bill's provisions elsewhere regarding disclosure. We
understand that this is not the intention of the registrars department
but would nevertheless welcome the reassurance provided by an
explicit provision to keep the index to the new register private.

C: DETAILED SUBMISSIONSON SELECTED
TOPICS

C.1 The Importance of Evidential Flexibility

C.1.a A flexible approach to the qualifying
criteria and evidence requirements of Gender Recognition Panels
is essential in order to ensure that the protections and emancipation
provided by legal recognition are made available to as many legitimately
transsexual people as possible.

C.1.b Trans people are diverse and, with
a long history of having had to struggle to obtain the treatment
they require to be comfortable in themselves, some of the paths
followed by individuals are equally varied. Some have had access
to sympathetic medical assistance, hormonal and surgical treatment
on the NHS. Others have had to obtain hormones on the black market
through necessity (especially in the 1960's-70's) and trod the
path to overseas surgery (eg the famous Casablanca practice of
Georges Burow mentioned in the biographies of Jan Morris and April
Ashley).

C.1.c Even by the standards of today, many
transsexual people encounter obstruction from GPs who are not
properly informed, they may find it easier to purchase hormones
directly from the many Internet Pharmacies which exist, and some
may shop abroad for superior and cheaper surgery when forced to
finance their own treatment by blanket policies still (illegally)
operated by some PCTs and SHAs. Many of these activities are regrettable,
but they are not uncommon in circumstances where people are driven
to desperate measures by inadequate or harsh treatment elsewhere.

C.1.d Furthermore, this is an area in which
medical advances continue to be made, opening up aspects of treatment
which may not have been available only months before. Treatment
choices have consequently varied over time and, indeed, are likely
to continue to evolve once the Bill becomes law. Whatever these
advances may bring, however, there are also individuals for whom
certain procedures will be precluded simply because of their own
medical circumstances. All forms of surgery carry greater risks,
for instance, with advancing age. People with blood clotting abnormalities
or pre-existing heart conditions may be unsuitable candidates
for sex hormones or some kinds of extended surgery. Availability
and affordability of procedures do not necessarily go hand in
hand and, in particular, genital surgery for transsexual men (female
to male) remains a lengthy, costly and high risk procedure, which
many such men are wisely cautioned to defer until the technology
has advanced some more.

C.1.e This latter aspect is particularly
important. Large numbers of trans men have followed good advice
to defer genital surgery until it is safer and more widely available
from a cohort of surgeons offering a range of techniques and choice
suitable for the individual's circumstances. In the meantime they
are simply "men without penises", in common with many
men who have lost all or part of their genitals through accident,
war or disease. Such men are no less men (and certainly not women)
by virtue of that misfortune and, whilst medicine is unable to
complete or restore this aspect of their bodies, all such men
deserve to be protected and respected by society for who they
are in terms of that more influential sex organthe one
between their ears.

C.l.f Certain sections of the media have,
of course, highlighted the corresponding possibility in trans
womenwhich is that the Bill provides the possibility to
legally recognise someone who retains aspects of what appear to
be male sex organs. There are, of course, people in this position
by other causespeople born with physical intersex conditions
which involve forms of hermaphroditism or who, although otherwise
assigned as female, possess a greatly enlarged clitoris.

C.1.g In practice, the number of trans women
who are in the position of having been unable to undergo genital
surgery (other than as a result of NHS funding policies) is very
small. Part of the existing diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria is based
on the persistent distaste for the individual's male sex organs,
which serve to limit the ability of the person to progress to
intimate relationships that are consistent with their identity.
This is therefore a small minority within an already small minority.
Nevertheless, the distress of Gender Dysphoria is just as real,
and the need for legal protection just as great, whether people
have undergone genital surgery or not. Human rights cannot hinge
on the ability to undergo a particular operation. We therefore
welcome the sensible proposal to invest Gender Recognition Panels
with the ability to consider the merit of applications, having
regard to all the medical factors prevailing in individual circumstances,
to arrive at humane and inclusive conclusions.

C.2 Pre-existing Marriages

C.2.a It used to be commonplace for transsexual
people to be expected to divorce or end a relationship before
hormonal or surgical gender reassignment treatment of any kind
was even contemplated. Part of the reasoning for this was the
belief that a transsexual woman (male to female) could only possibly
desire men if she genuinely desired to be a woman. Divorce from
a previous relationship with a woman was therefore regarded as
a diagnostic indication of being "serious" about the
reassigned role, and trans people who were bisexual or whose sexual
orientation was completely independent of their own gender role,
found it necessary to conceal these facts in order to obtain treatment.

C.2.b Some may question, of course, why
someone with Gender Dysphoria would marry in the first place.
The answers are manifold. Certainly in the past trans people,
like Gay and Lesbian people, have been encouraged to marry heterosexually
in order to "cure" them. In hindsight we know that this
doesn't work, although the struggle and denial may go on for several
years, especially when children arrive as well.

Even post-reassignment the law has, for the
last 33 years, perversely encouraged trans people to marry (if
they should wish to do so) in what appears to be a same-sex manner.
ie Trans women have been told until now that they could only marry
another woman.

C.2.c It was generally accepted, until recently,
that gender reassignment treatment was a prima facie example of
"unreasonable behaviour" in a marriage, enabling a quick
divorce to be initiated by the non-trans partner. No consideration
was given to the effects of adding the stress of a partnership
break-up to the other challenges facing the trans person, nor
whether the outcome was in the interests of the other spouse or
any children. Any consequences tended to be regarded as the responsibility
of the trans person for "choosing" the path of change
in the first place.

C.2.d Nowadays it is recognised that transsexual
people do not "choose" their need for reassignment,
and that (given the pre-existing nature of their gender identity
from birth) it is only the label for their sexual orientation
which sometimes needs to change to match their new role. ie Someone
who was attracted to women and who remains that way following
reassignment merely alters in the perception of others from being
heterosexual to lesbian (or vice-versa).

Sexual orientation is independent of Gender
Identitythe one does not dictate the other and orientation
may remain constant in spite of reassignment. Only the social
label for that orientation alters.

C.2.e If anything, this change in external
perception of a relationship is harder for the non-trans partner
to deal with. Having, for life, regarded themselves as heterosexual,
they have to suddenly deal with other people's perceptions having
changed when (to them) all that has happened is that they continue
to love and support the same person (long after sex has ceased
to have any relevance to the dynamics of the relationship in any
case).

These are not "same sex" relationships
all of a sudden, following the reassignment of one partner. They
are "non-sex" unions.

C.2.f Few such remarkable relationships
exist. Most couples do continue to divorce when a partner embarks
upon transitionperhaps more amicably than at times in the
past, but nevertheless acknowledging that the fundamental basis
of the relationship has changed for one or both of the partners.
In other cases, couples set out with good intentions to remain
together, only to find that the emergence of the trans partner's
suppressed personality and interests once again leads to an irrevocable
breakdown. Few relationships survive any sort of change of this
magnitude.

In practice, there are only a handful of such
relationshipsprobably between two and three dozen at the
most.

C.2.g Where such relationships have survived,
it is often because of the long-standing nature of the relationship.
This adds to the seriousness of any moves which threaten the continuance
of the union ie the partners are often by now of an age where
joint pension and other rights, dependent on marriage, weigh heavily
in the balance of arguments for remaining in a legal union of
some kind. Consequences may include the loss of joint pension
and life insurance rights, loss of inheritance tax immunity and
indeed all of the disadvantages already identified by the Government
as reasons to support the principle of civil union for other couples
excluded from the rights of marriage.

The financial and social consequences of an
obliged divorce are great for such couplesespecially for
the non-trans spouse who stands to lose their own security in
exchange for their partner's convention rights

C.2.h It is also important to reflect again
that these relationships already exist without serious comment
or consequence in the community ie whilst appearing to be an arrangement
of two women (or men) living together, it is unlikely that anyone
actually notices or finds it remarkable that the two are, in law,
married rather than simply in an (as yet) non-legal relationship.

The drive to require dissolution of such long-term
and stable relationships for legal recognition does not stem from
social unquiet about a state of affairs which already exists.
It results purely from political fear of the consequences of what
the relationship technically becomesA Same Sex Marriage.

It is not that such a relationship is considered
nowadays to be "improper". Rather it is the case that
it is regarded, for the moment, as "inconvenient".

C.2.i The reaction of all the couples who've
contacted Press for Change in relation to this provision in the
draft Bill is one of uniform horror and distress. Indeed, it is
already serving to destabilise such relationships by posing the
partners with impossible choices, which tend to set them apart
from one-another.

C.2.j The non-trans partners understandably
wish the best for their companion but also, especially when already
retired, need to be concerned for their own continuing welfare
and that of their children. Such partners have already perhaps
suffered greatly to come this far with their spouse and now face
the uncertainty and fear which accompany not really knowing which
way their partner will "vote" when faced with such an
impossible decisionyour marriage or the legal recognition
of everything you've struggled for.

C.2.k Meanwhile, the trans partners often
experience enormous guilt already. It is their needs which the
family has so fulsomely respected in the past and now this question
transforms their medical condition into a divisive threat again.
What are they to do? Forgo the rights confirmed for them by the
European Court or, in taking them, earn the blame for the dissolution
of their family and the economic mayhem which results in all those
lives?

C.2.l The possibility of Human Rights cases
arises, of courseand opinions are divided on what the outcome
would be when such a provision is tested. Press for Change believe
that insufficient consideration has yet been given to ways and
means of addressing the political concerns so that the rights
of couples in this position can be respected.

C.2.m In our submissions to the Interdepartmental
Working Group in 1999 and 2000[43],
PFC recommended that the extent of the "problem" could
be readily contained by legislating a cut-off in pre-existing
marriages which could be allowed to continue. That is, marriages
already contracted for a certain time (eg five years) at the time
of the legislation coming into force could be exempted from the
requirement to be dissolved. Normal attrition then means that
the number of such marriages would diminish over time, and there
would be less ability to try and draw parallels between this exception
of trans couples remaining married and same sex couples wanting
to marry.

The question isn't about enabling same sex partners
to get married, but to enable existing partners to remain married.

C.2.n We also believe that insufficient
formal consideration has yet been given to the way in which the
provisions of the draft Bill interact with proposals to facilitate
the legal recognition of same sex partnerships. It has to be understood
that the needs and sensibilities of both partners in a pre-existing
marriage need to be accounted-for prior to rushing to a conclusion
that the financial interests of families could be met by seamlessly
transforming a marriage, on legal gender recognition, into a same
sex partnership with equal rights and protections. For one thing
it begs the question as to whether the rights and protections
really are as equivalent and, if so, what purpose there would
be in requiring the change at all. Just as importantly, however,
the non-trans partner cannot suddenly be regarded as having switched
their sexual orientation simply by virtue of having remained with
their partner. As explained before, many such relationships survive
simply by sidestepping the question of orientation altogether.
It is simply not relevant to the relationshiponly to a
prurient society. It may therefore be an unpalatable "step
too far" to expect the partner to be content with labelling
themselves as something they are notsimply to meet the
needs of political expediency on the part of a Government which
thinks it has found a neat way of keeping the same sex partnership
and marriage questions artificially separate.

C.2.o Whatever the outcome, however, the
proposals as they stand are brutal and cruel. Requiring an inhuman
choice by partners and threatening the end of a long-standing
convention that Government has no place in determining who should
remain married.

In an age when such a large proportion of marriages
fail to survive more than a handful of years, relationships which
continue and flourish in spite of the gender reassignment of one
partner deserve to be revered. They represent a beacon of hope
for all those who pine for long-lost certainties and stability
in societyrare modern day examples of couples who really
do understand the importance and value of their marriage vows.

The current proposals requiring the dissolution
of such "model" examples in return for the already-determined
right of legal recognition are simply a kick in the teeth to those
who have selflessly upheld values which many others in society
value highly.

APPENDIX 3REACTIONSFROM MARRIED
COUPLESWITHA TRANS
PARTNER

Press for Change estimates that there are fewer
than three dozen marriages of this type. Many of those couples
volunteered their personal accounts and we have featured a selection
of them here. These and others will also be published on our web
site.

Granny Julia and Granny Delia

Forty-one years we've been together. Married
in August 1962, we celebrated our Ruby Anniversary last year.
Two daughters we've raised, and there are now five grandchildren
who love their Granny Delia and Granny Julia enormously. We lost
our only son at his premature birth in 1964. It hasn't all been
roses. We've had our differences, some were really very serious,
for example my gender problems. But we've come through. Our love
and respect for each other has carried us through. We talked;
we compromised at each stage. Mostly we've had some wonderful
times and shared a fantastic life together.

And at the ages of 67 and 65, what is our reward?
It is suggested that we must annul our marriage just so that I,
Julia, maybe awarded full legal recognition in my new and chosen
gender. The gender that I believe is right for me, and in which
I have lived for nearly ten years. Delia and I are citizens of
this nation. We have both paid all our dues and taxes without
question. Yet if we remain legally espoused, then I shall have
to remain a second-class citizen. A stark choice indeed. And what
of Delia, who has found herself in this mess through no fault
of her own? Is she to be punished also? She who lovingly gave
her support and whose sacrifices held this family together, often
against her better judgement. We just feel that we have got things
together, when someone comes and pulls the carpet out from under
our feet

The alternative of a Civil Partnership would,
we suppose, be an acceptable compromise. However, that is only
a real proposition when that separate legislation becomes law.
It might not. There has been no assurance that we would benefit
from the same security as if we remained married. There has been
no clarification of the way that pensions, inheritance tax and
other financial issues will apply to couples in Civil Partnerships.
Until we have assurances that there will be no change in all of
these, and other related areas, we would have to remain as we
are now. We would not wish to be in a Civil Partnership if it
was to be a Second Class Partnership. If the religious organisations
are so worried about our marriage, then we would be quite willing
to have their section of our present contract annulled. It would,
however, be crucial to retain the civil section after the appropriate
name and gender changes had been inserted for Julia, simply for
our mutual security.

A partner's tale

I am 56 and my husband (P) is 52. Three years
ago. after a long period of depression. and just after our silver
wedding, P told me that she was trans. Soon after she was "officially"
diagnosed and we went through a terrible six months together before
gradually coming to terms with this. Now P has decided that she
must transition to avoid sliding back into depression. We love
each other deeply and talking through this difficult situation
has brought us even closer, so we have no intention of parting.
We were married in church as practising Christians arid have always
been faithful to each other. The commitment we made then means
a great deal to us both and it would be extremely painful and
wrong for us to divorce. We have three loving and supportive adult
children whose main anxiety about P's condition has been that
we might separate. A divorce, however much undesired by us, would
hurt them dreadfully. Ideally, we want our marriage to stay as
it is, so that those close to us know that our relationship is
in no way diminished, and that others will see us as we will see
ourselvesas a married lesbian couple.

Show compassion

Only couples affected by gender change can possibly
appreciate the trauma, tragedy and immense suffering, for themselves
and families. Often the marriage will end, but surely this is
a personal decision, not something to be imposed? I was plunged,
suddenly and reluctantly, into gender reassignment at age 54,
I did not expect my wife to stand by me. But I could not have
survived the darkest, suicidal times without her unselfish love
and support. I'm now a free woman, after 50 years of self-imposed
imprisonment. Our marriage survives in a mutually caring, non-sexual
relationship. Surgery will complete my transition soon. Why should
my legal status only be available with the stigma, additional
hurt and trauma of a divorce, with all the complications of property
and financial division? It may seem logical, but, for goodness
sake, rethink in HUMAN terms. Show compassion. Gender Recognition
is not retrospective, so all we need is a saving provision preserving
the pre-existing personal legal rights of the couple (a lawful
marriage when transacted) unless and until they wish to end this.
If it needs to be converted to civil partnership, the change should,
with consent, be an automatic process of gender recognition.

Another committed partner's view

I entered into, and wish to continue in, a religious
marriage, therefore this legislation would be a devastating blow.
My own Anglican Vicar concludes that marriage cannot be "voided"
in the way that the Bill suggests. My husband and I took part
in a public act of sacrament in which we made a mutual commitment.
At that time (36 years ago) we were a man and a woman who intended
to remain together in the state of matrimony for the rest of our
lives.

To those of us (and our children) for whom marriage
is not just a civil matter, this legislation is grossly insensitive.
Our spouses' right to privacy and need for an amended birth certificate
is not something to be taken lightly and it is unjust that a choice
has to be made between the certificate or the marriage. Suggesting
that we convert our marriage to a civil partnership is unacceptable.
Surely a government that prides itself on the promotion of family
values should be doing everything it can to preserve marriages
rather than encouraging their dissolution. Even the Roman Catholic
Church felt able to accept married priests converting from the
Anglican Church, whilst still requiring Catholic priests to remain
unmarried.

Even when living apart . . .

Christine and I got married in 1971,we first
met at school in 1963, 40 years ago at age 14. We have always
been in love but me being transsexual has been devastating to
our marriage. We have three sons and a daughter. Holding our family
together has been difficult but we managed this for most of the
children's childhood until the youngest was 18. 1 left home in
1999 when I transitioned and had surgery after many years of personal
agony. I still love all of them but because of their feelings
of fear and shame, I have not seen my children since. At present
Chris and I see each other every two to three weeks, our children
are not aware of this, and we usually phone twice a week. I am
saddened by all of this and Chris has very low self esteem and
much anger. I want to have full legal recognition but I just can't
divorce Chris, we seem to want to stay married. We are both practising
Christians and take our marriage bond seriously. Having lived
for over three years apart, seeing the effect my gender change
has had I cannot bring myself to hurt any of them any more by
stirring it all up again.

Married for 14 years . . .

My husband and I have been married for 14 years,
and we have 3 small children. We have weathered his diagnosis
and initial gender dysphoria treatments, and want to remain together
after his transition.

However, when we encounter social stigma, and
when some friends and family doubt our ability to stay together,
it is difficult. At these times, our marriage promises become
very important to us, and give reasons to work through the changes
in our relationship. If we have to convert our marriage to a civil
partnership, the feeling of continuity and permanence would be
removed, and the impetus to stay together through difficult times
would be much less.

In addition to our feelings, we have made various
decisions (legal, financial, child care etc) based on the shared
rights and responsibilities of marriage, and fear that a civil
partnership will not be able to retain all of these in every situation.

The new legislation seems to us the unenviable
choice; whether my husband must explain his life and medical history
to every official who asks for identification (while most other
transsexuals no longer have to), or to risk considerable emotional,
financial and legal insecurity for us and our children.

Why?

I married the person I knew I'd spend the rest
of my life with 18 years ago. During these years, we have witnessed
all our friends and family divorce. My mother has seen all her
other children involved in unhappy marriages. I was always her
rock.

I wasn't the son she cherished, I was really
another daughter, but I was still her rock. One of the overriding
strengths was my partner, supporting me, even through these changes.
We remain as close as ever, very much in love and determined to
remain married.

Now we may be forced to divorce, because of
a Bill that will force me to choose between remaining married
or correcting the gender mistake. We have discussed this and reluctantly
agreed there is no choice. If the Bill goes through, we will divorce
so I can eradicate the hateful markers still left on some of my
official records.

Would a Civil partnership replacement scheme
be acceptable? I suppose it would have to be, but what really
would be the difference, if it was equivalent to a marriage? It
just seems petty, pointless and vindictive to force it onto us.
I have done nothing wrong. All we want is to live our lives in
peace, put the past behind us and allow me to live and finally
die as the woman I've always claimed to be.